Listen to the IRS state: “Wherever we can, we follow the law”. How about follow the law period? Don’t the courts require that everyone follow the law? Or is that now an acceptable answer for taxpayers.
The Obama administration is fighting a federal judge’s order requiring it to explain why the government places US citizens who haven’t been convicted of any violent crimes on its no-fly database.
In a courtroom where a female can enforce an agreement while a male can not, that opens the door to the question as to whether Judge Tyrie Boyer is a sexist? If one party has to perform the entire agreement and the other party does not have to perform, one wonders why. It would be akin to buying a car, having the car repossessed by the dealer but still having to make the payments. Is this because of the gender of one party? One would think a competent Judge would remember contract law where a contract has to be enforceable for both parties to be a contract. Alas, the conclusion is that either Judge Tyrie Boyer is sexist or incompetent. Or Tyrie Boyer is both incompetent and a sexist? What else have you seen this clown do in court? Let us know in the comments.
Eugene Volokh updates the tale of the Indiana Court System ignoring the First Amendment:
Last months I blogged about State v. Brewington, an Indiana Court of Appeals decisions that I thought was inconsistent with the First Amendment. I’m pleased to say that today (with the help of local counsel Jim Bopp and Justin McAdam) I filed a pro bonoamicus brief urging the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the case.
Volokh points out in the amicus brief, their reading of the law suggests that prosecution is appropriate in situations like these:
1. a columnist’s writing, “Legislator A’s vote on issue B is ridiculous, and I intend to ridicule him until his constituents view him with contempt”;
2. an advocacy group’s picketing a store with signs saying, “The store owner’s decision to stock product C is disgraceful, and we hope our speech will expose the owner to disgrace and ostracism”;
3. a politician’s saying, “The incumbent’s decision D is so foolish that, once I publicize it, the incumbent will be the laughingstock of the state.”
Talk about some crazy rulings from these Judges in Indiana. The Court system in Indiana seems to be circling the wagons to protect their own.